OCR Text |
Show MAY 1996 EDITORIAL Is There a Voice of Reason in Utah’s Tourist Promotion? Utah is pumping up its image as a 620,719 — a vertible mob scene for a small park. In 1995, that number exploded to 859,372. Manhattan, any- global tourist destination. Not only dc we have the 2002 Winter Games on the horizon to attracat skiers, but a new Utah Travel Council page on the World Wide Web computer linkup guarantees visibility to millions and millions of prospective ness one? If you take into account that not tourists Christopher In 1995, an estimated 15.5 million tourists visited Utah from other states and other countries, most notably Europe and Japan. Tourism is becoming an ever larger piece of the Utah economy The Utah Travel Council reports that in 1995, tourists spent an estimated -$3.5 billion in the state. That accounts for an estimated $250 million in sales and other taxes. While the bottom line looks nice, tourism has proven to be a two-edged sword, if Moab and Park City are any measure. Tourism provides Utahns with jobs and a tax base but also with such things as increased living expenses. And while tourism provides busiOpportunities to some, most Utahns in the industry have only very low-paying jobs That aside, Utah has been selling itself as a sort of Disneyland of the outdoors. Our natural wonders are second SL mLi Smart to none To give people an idea, we put Delicate Arch on our license plates, tourist guides and even on the World Wide Web It shouldn’t come as a surprise then, that one can no longer view Delicate Arch except in the company of hundreds of others. Needless to say, that doesn’t translate to a nature experience. It doesn’t provide the renewal we seek from nature but seems much more akin to a ride at an amusement park, like Magic Mountain or Lagoon. That is grounds enough to get people upset — that our natural wonders are no longer wonders but attractions to be sold off like an E ticket for Fantasyland. visitation to Arches in’ 1990; National Monument, where Delicate Arch is located, grew to an astounding [t is quite telling that many in Congress have come from the legal profession, where the standard procedure is to adopt a basic premise — innocence or guilt — and then develop an argument to support that premise. The process involves picking and choosing between possibly conflicting “facts,” keeping those that support one’s case, and discarding, or discrediting those that do not. This is how the law operates, but as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with science knows, this is not at all how science works. On the contrary, a good scientist attempts to look at all the available evidence before drawing conclusions. There may have been a time in the Steen’s Demise simply ignore scientific evidence, which we did not like, or that was inconvenient. For better or worse, those days are long gone. The critical nature and urgency of today’s environmental issues — depletion of the ozone layer, destruction of rain forests and wetlands,:clearcutting of old growth forests and global warming — do not afford us that luxu- past when Dear editor, Three things in life death, taxes and the fact Steen is mot turning grave, as you suggest, recent changes in Moab. are certain: that Charlie over in his because of If you don’t believe me, look Charlie up and ask him, yourself. — Jim Pedler many people visit Arches in December, January and February, that means that over 95,000 visited on average each month. It is what Edward Abbey termed 25 years ago ¢ s “industrial tourism.” And what it yields is a mob with a mentality to match, where nothing is wonderous, let alone sacred. The Utah Travel Council, an arm of state government, now has an annual budget of $3.7 million. And frankly, they've done a 2reat job of bringing tourists here. But the question has to be asked, is there a limit? How many of our natural wonders have to become as overrun as Delicate Arch before someone at the State Capitol says enough. Will it be twice as many tourists as we have today — 30 million? Will it be 60 million? Will there come a time when our leaders say that our lifestyles are worth something, too? Or will we just keep pumping Utah up until there is no possibility of solitude and no possibility of renewal through nature? Will we pump Utah up until the a It is perhaps the best argument for larger federally designated Wilderness, rather than a smaller one But it still leaves our crowded parks becoming more crowded and yes, overrun. All this while our Utah representatives in Washington DC are cutting the parks budgets. Jim Hansen, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett and _ Enid Waldholtz are all in favor of cutting budgets for parks and it’s beginning to show. There isn’t enough money for maintenance, let alone new facilities. Meanwhile their Republican colleagues here at home are pumping up national parks in Utah on the World Wide Web. None of this makes much sense, unless your only value is that of the bottom line in the state’s budget. Certainly somewhere, there is a voice of moderation, urging that we promote tourism only so far as it doesn’t detract from our natural wonders and the lifestyles of the people who live here. Certainly somewhere, there is a voice of reason that urges moderation and the preservation of what we brag makes this state so special. @ Congressional Ignoramuses Will Undo Environmental Protections Dear editor, Clearly there are more than a few scientific ignoramuses gracing the halls of Congress. One would probably be safe in saying that many people in Congress, who have the power to make far-reaching decisions about environmental matters, would probably be hard-pressed to tell the difference between Fahrenheit and Centigrade — to say nothing of the difference between a red and a gray wolf, So rudimentary is their scientific knowledge that they are simply incapable of understanding the value of the environmental laws they are so eager to weaken and eliminate. Exaggerated entire state is bumper-to-bumper, like Little Cottonwood Canyon during ski season? we could safely afford to We ignore, or downplay the signifi- cance of information relevant to such issues at great risk to ourselves and the other creatures of the Earth. We — or more likely, our children, or their children — are going to have to endure the consequences of our refusal to acknowledge the gravity of the current environmental situation. We tempt fate when we base critical environmental decisions not on good science but upon an economics that fails even to acknowledge and factor in the value of clean air, clean water, open space and abundant wildlife, and which treats irreplaceable natural resources as mere commodities, existing solely for our consumption. Admittedly, it is difficult to place a value on a majestic old growth forest, a swiftly flowing mountain stream, a silent desert landscape, a California Condor, or a gray wolf — or any part of our natural world. Nonetheless, we must find a way to factor these things into our eco- attempting to gut the environmental regulations that protect our water, air and wildlife. Members of Congress obviously knew and thought little about how their legislative actions would effect the banking industry. Many of these same members know and think even less about how their current legislative efforts are going to effect our environment. Unless we wake up, we are going to pay a high environmental price, just as we are paying, and will continue to pay, a high financial price for Congress’ fiscal excesses. Are we really so foolish that we are willing to give up our hard-won environmental protections — like Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts — without a fight? — Laurence Jewett nomics, or suffer serious consequences. It is disconcerting, and strangely comical, that some of the same people who brought us the federal fiscal fiasco are now assuring us that they know how best to get us out of the financial mess that they created. Many of the same people who brought us the sayings and loan collapse — by gutting banking regulations — are now PAGE 2 LETTERS If you have comments, concerns or insights into articles appearing in The Mountain Times, or would like to address other timely outdoor and conservation issues, write us. Send your letters to Sounding Board, at The Mountain Times, P.O. Box 1433, Park City, Utah, 84060. Letters should be typewritten and double-spaced and should not exceed 500 words (1-1/2 pages). |